the Creative Use of
Tablets in Schools
Observation
visits fi nal
Author
Diana Bannister MBE
University of Wolverhampton
Editors
Anja Balanskat
|
Jim Ayre
Roger Blamire
European Schoolnet
Publisher
European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AISBL)
Rue de Trèves 61
1040 Brussels
|
Belgium
Picture
credits
Virginija Bireniene
|
Daniela Cuccurullo
|
Jan De Craemer
Antonio Gonçalves
|
Daniela Gruber
|
Ingrida Kupciuniene
Rosa Palmizio
|
Daniela Porro
|
Phil Spoors
Design and printing
Hofi Studio
|
CZ
Published
May 2015
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
The work presented on this document is supported by the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme – project Creative Classrooms Lab (Grant agreement 2012–5124/005-001). This report fulfi ls a contract commitment (deliverable D4.3) to provide a “fi nal report from observation and documentation of practice“. The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the consortium members and it does not represent the opinion of the European Commission and the Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of information contained herein.
NB: Websites are referenced throughout this report; these were checked prior to publication. The reference to the website does not constitute an endorsement of the product or organisation.
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
4
Introduction 5
Link Observation Visits
7
CCL Project Methodology
9
Main Findings
13
1. Implementation of Devices and Connectivity
13
A.
Access and Ownership
13
B.
Connectivity – Reliability
16
C.
Technical
Support
16
2. Pedagogy
17
A.
Curriculum and Timetables
17
B.
Length of Lessons
18
C. Team Teaching
18
D.
Content Creation – Outcome vs Output
19
E.
Personalisation – How do Students Learn?
19
F.
Collaboration – In The Classroom and School to School
20
G.
Assessment with Tablets
21
H.
Student Refl ection
22
3. Resources, Applications and Content
23
A.
Learning Platforms and Cloud Based Solutions
24
B.
Apps
24
C.
Sharing
25
D.
Languages
25
E.
Paperless
Classrooms
25
F.
E-Safety and Data Privacy
26
4. Whole School Issues
27
A.
Vision and Purpose
27
B.
Learning
Spaces
28
C.
Professional
Development
28
D.
Parental
Involvement
31
Project Methodology – Lessons Learned
32
CCL Conclusions and Recommendations
35
4
Executive Summary
The Creative Classrooms Lab project was a policy experimentation which
took place over two years from April 2013 to May 2015. It was funded by the
European Commission and co-ordinated by European Schoolnet. The University
of Wolverhampton were responsible for the observation and documentation of
practice.
The purpose of the Creative Classrooms Lab (CCL) project was to undertake a series of tablet computer policy experimentations. Teachers within 45 classrooms were identifi ed across eight countries to ‘experiment’ with tablets; this has involved them developing learning activities that can be incorporated in their classroom practice based on tablet policy scenarios scoped by CCL policy project partners and lead teachers.
The project involved nine Ministries of Education (MoE) or Responsible Organisations and throughout this report, these are referred to as policy project partners. This included representatives from AUSTRIA,
BELGIUM (FLANDERS), BELGIUM (WALLONIA),
CZECH REPUBLIC, ITALY, LITHUANIA, PORTUGAL,
SLOVENIA and UNITED KINGDOM.
The fi nal report builds on the interim report from year one and identifi es main fi ndings under key themes. Each of these have been explored further within the main fi ndings. The key themes are:
Implementation of Devices and Connectivity; Pedagogy;
Resources, Applications and Content; and Whole School Issues.
The report also addresses the key lessons learned from the project methodology.
TheLink Observation Visits have provided a valuable insight into practice within the classrooms and in addition have given policy project partners and CCL project teachers the opportunity to ask questions and discuss specifi c challenges at a national level.
The aim of the Link Observation Visits was to capture the real use of the tablets by allowing a researcher to observe lessons and document practice. Each Link Observation Visit has included at least:
Two full lesson observations within each country with the CCL project teachers
Interviews with the CCL teachers and school leaders.
The report concludes with a series of recommendations
for policy-makers, school leaders and teachers with regards to the implementation of tablets and 1:1 devices in schools. The report is presented with 11 case studies
that show how policy scenarios were implemented in practice: http://bit.ly/CCL-casestudies. A blog of the Link Observation Visits is also available at http:// creative.eun.org/observation.
5
Introduction
This report is based on the fi ndings from the Link Observation Visits undertaken
within work package 4 (WP4), Observation and Documentation of Practice of
the Creative Classrooms Lab project (CCL), led by Diana Bannister, University
of Wolverhampton, UK. The report documents the main fi ndings from both
phases of Link Observation Visits to the CCL partner countries. It describes
the methodologies used to collate evidence and analyses the key themes.
Each Link Observation Visit includes lesson observations in at least two CCL
project schools using tablets; interviews with the teachers and summarises the
discussion about the project scenario process.
The purpose of the Creative Classrooms Lab (CCL) project was to undertake a series of tablet computer policy experimentations, at the core of which pedagogical scenarios and learning activities were designed and implemented to support innovative approaches to teaching and learning with tablets in and outside school. In order to address concrete policy concerns related to the integration of tablets in schools and to support capacity building in this area, the main project partners were Ministries of Education or organisations working closely with MoE on the integration of ICT in schools in each country. These are referred to as policy project partners in this report and are those who ran the experimentation and coordinated the pilot schools in each country. The other two project partners were European Schoolnet, the project coordinator and the University of Wolverhampton responsible for the link observation visits, webinars and documentation of practice.
Forty-fi ve teachers were identifi ed by nine policy project partners from Austria, Belgium (Flanders) and Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Within this group, each project partner also identifi ed a lead teacher to assist with coordination and undertake work at national level. These lead teachers also worked with the policy-makers to design the CCL teaching and learning scenarios and provided ongoing support for other teachers involved in the project.
It is important to note that there was some variation in both the number of devices available in each classroom pilot, the level of wireless connectivity and the length of time the students had access to the equipment. Some students had ownership of the technology 24/7, whilst others only had access to it at school during designated
lesson times. Most of the teachers had only been using tablets with students for a short time before the beginning of the project. In just two cases, the schools had been using tablets for almost four years. The majority of teachers in the project used iPads and Android devices and a few teachers used Windows devices. Two thirds of the teachers within the project had access to an interactive whiteboard or an interactive projector. The partners were encouraged to identify fi ve teachers with a particular focus on secondary schools and the teaching of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects. However, as all schools participating in the project had to provide their own technology, connectivity and infrastructure, there was a certain degree of fl exibility in terms of the age range of students and curriculum focus. Around two thirds of the teachers involved in the project
6
used tablets in mathematics, science and technology classes and the remaining teachers used tablets in language, or geography or history classes. In some cases, the policy project partner supported the schools to access tablets at the beginning of the project in conjunction with commercial suppliers. Ultimately, the key requirement was that the project teachers were able to implement the scenarios within the timelines of the project.
The project also included working with Associate Partners, which meant that several schools within the project were provided with access to specifi c equipment or licenses for software/apps. In the second year of the project, fi ve schools trialled the use of IRIS Connect technology to capture their practice using tablets and uploaded the recordings to an online platform. This enabled recording of real lessons and remote observation of classroom practice and allowed CCL project teachers to give each other feedback.
The report captures the considerable differences concerning the implementation of technologies that exist not only between the different countries, but also within the countries at a national level. At present, across the different countries represented within the CCL Project
there are no current examples of large scale strategic implementations of tablet technology. However, there are examples of other large scale ICT implementations including PCs, laptops, netbooks, interactive whiteboards and other technologies such as visualisers. Currently, there are various levels of implementation of tablets, varying degrees of use and varied access to content. Much of the ‘innovation’ is being led by individual schools. Furthermore, there are signifi cant differences in terms of types of professional development available with regard to the use of ICT and in some countries there is very little evidence of training to use tablets specifi cally.
The report concludes with a series of recommendations for policy-makers, school leaders and teachers with regards to the implementation of tablets and 1:1 devices in schools. Above all, it is necessary to recognise the need for stakeholders to work together to ensure that any implementation programme considers the long-term changes that are necessary as access to tablet devices continues to become commonplace.
7
Link Observation Visits
The purpose of the Link Observation Visits was to allow a researcher to observe
lessons involving the use of tablets and to discuss how the teaching and learning
scenarios involving tablets had been implemented. The observation visits included
interviews and discussions with headteachers, senior management teams and
school leaders as well as other teachers and support staff who are involved with
the implementation of technology in school.
In the fi rst year of the project, Link Observation Visits were undertaken in four countries: UK, Slovenia, Belgium Flanders and Austria involving ten lesson observations. In the second year of the project, Link Observation Visits were undertaken in Lithuania, Belgium Wallonia, Italy, Portugal and Czech Republic involving twelve observations. Throughout the course of the project, 22 formal lesson observations were undertaken with teachers involved in the CCL project. However, some school visits also included the opportunity to observe other teachers, though in some cases this was only for a part of the lesson. These additional eleven observations have been taken into consideration to inform the evidence of current practice of using tablets in schools.
The Link Observation Visit Handbook1 was offered as a guide to the project and whilst the policy project partners were encouraged to follow this, it was accepted that there may be slight variations in how these guidelines were followed because of the organisation of pilots within each country and the timing of the Link Observation Visit.
Purpose of the Observation
Visit
The main purpose of the Link Observation Visit in each participating country was to observe and document the classroom practice to record the ways in which the teacher uses the tablets with the students. This has then been analysed as a common independent insight into the use of tablets, but also to collate practice from across the nine partners to inform future thinking. In the Link Observation Handbook, the purpose of the visit is defi ned as follows:
To look at classroom practice with the use of the tablets
To observe the implementation of the learning stories developed from the policy scenarios
To look at practice in at least two of the CCL classrooms (this will be depend upon the location of the schools)
To help defi ne exemplary practice for the project To consolidate leading examples
To interview practitioners
To share European practice at a national level To provide the teachers with the opportunity to share
practice (opportunity for optional National Focus Group).
The aim of the Link Observation Visit is to capture the “real use” of the tablets. Each Link Observation Visit has included at least:
Two full lesson observations within each country with the CCL project teachers
Interviews with the CCL teachers
8
Lesson Observation Record
A lesson observation record2 was developed for both cycles of scenarios. This was used to capture the main details within the lesson and to ensure consistency for the CCL project teachers and observer.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with a lead representative from each policy project partner at the beginning and end of the project. The fi ndings from the beginning of the
project were recorded within the interim report (D4.2). The purpose of the second interview was to document the current use of tablets at the end of the project and to understand if/how the methodologies in the project had supported developments. Prior to the interview, each partner was given a framework to outline the key areas that would be covered. The interviews were conducted as a discussion via Skype or telephone and each interview lasted approximately one hour. Whilst all interviewees had the same framework and same key questions, some additional discussion was dependent on individual responses. The fi ndings from the interviews have been analysed and captured within the different sections of the report.
9
CCL Project Methodology
A.
SCENARIO PROCESS
POLICY-MAKER SCENARIOS – At the start of the scenario development process, CCL partners worked together to develop policy-maker scenarios based on a methodology developed in the iTEC project3 where future classroom scenarios provide a vision for innovation and advanced pedagogical practice. They outline the educational challenges and priorities to be addressed during the national pilots and a fi rst set of teaching and learning activities for teachers. The policy-maker scenarios served as a reference framework for the learning stories (or pedagogical scenarios) to be developed in a second phase during a pedagogical scenario development workshop. LEARNING STORIES (OR PEDAGOGICAL SCENARIOS) inform teaching and learning practices during the pilot. They are example narratives that present
how a collection of learning activities could be performed with students. During two pedagogical scenario development workshops lead teachers and policy project partners co-developed the learning stories. Special attention was given that learning stories refl ect key ideas of the policy project partner’s scenarios and respond to educational challenges to be addressed supported by the use of tablets.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES are the detailed descriptions of novel teaching and learning in classrooms within the learning story. They suggest ways of expanding teaching practices with practical steps, motivational benefi ts and tips on technology. They can be selected, combined and adapted to personal learning contexts. The seven core activities in each learning story are: Dream, Explore,
Map, Make, Ask, Remake and Show.
3 http://itec.eun.org
CCL SCENARIOS 2014
CCL SCENARIOS 2013
School to School
Collaboration
Belgium
x
Czech Republic
Collaboration and
Assessment
(iGroup)
Austria
x
Italy
x
Slovenia
Liberating Learning
Lithuania
Portugal
x
UK
Collaboration
Austria
x
Belgium Wallonia
Slovenia
Content creation
Belgium Flanders
x
Italy
Personalisation
Czech Republic
Lithuania
x
UK
Flipped Classroom
10
The project developed two sets of pedagogical scenarios/ learning stories that were implemented by CCL teachers with their target class during the project, each set of scenarios in one school term. The fi rst set of scenarios were tested from November 2013 to April 2014, the second set of scenarios were implemented from October 2014 to January 2015.
The Link Observation Visits investigated how the CCL learning stories/pedagogical scenarios were implemented by the teachers during the pilots.4
B.
Lead Teachers
Each policy partner organisation appointed a lead teacher in their country or region (nine in total), which formed part of a practitioner focus group for the pedagogical scenario development. Each lead teacher contributed to development of the two sets of pedagogical scenarios during the pedagogical scenario development workshop. Lead teachers also helped to lead the coordination of the pilots involving the other four participating teachers in their country. With the support of the policy project partner and European Schoolnet, they encouraged teachers in the project to develop and share learning activities based on the project pedagogical scenarios/learning stories.
C.
Support at National Level
The CCL policy partner organisations supported the pilots on a national level in line with national/regional priorities for ICT in education by:
selecting CCL teachers/schools/classrooms according to criteria agreed by project partners; setting up national training workshops, kick off
meetings, online webinars and focus groups for teachers prior to the pilot implementation (providing translations of scenarios, methodologies for implementation);
providing teachers with support and guidance throughout the project;
supporting the Peer Exchange workshops organised at European level.
D.
Webinars
During the project, the University of Wolverhampton provided six webinars for all 45 CCL project teachers in order to provide ongoing online support. All of the webinars were delivered using the Cisco WebEx platform and held during the early evening just after most school’s teaching hours. After each webinar, the teachers were encouraged to write their own online refl ective blog. This information is publicly available via the CCL project website within the teachers’ community of practice5. This means that anyone can access the information that the teachers have written and has led to other non-CCL project teachers using the blog templates to support their own professional development.
E.
Working with
Associate
Partners
Over the course of the project seven industry partners in the European Schoolnet Future Classroom Lab became CCL Associate Partners (this activity was not funded) and offered free hardware to a limited number of CCL schools and software/content licenses to all of the CCL schools. They included:
Adobe (Adobe Captivate and Presenter software) Corinth (Corinth Classroom app and content) IRIS Connect (IRIS Connect video-based continuing
professional development platform)
NEC (NEC DisplayNote content sharing app and NEC interactive displays)
Promethean (Promethean ClassFlow teaching and learning platform)
Samsung (upgrading of schools with Samsung tablets to Samsung Smart School solution) SMART Technologies (SMART amp collaborative
learning platform)
4 For further details on the scenario development process see: Report on phase 1 scenario development Report on phase 2 scenario development: http://creative.eun.org/about. Full access to policy-maker scenarios and learning stories: http://creative.eun.org/scenarios
11 As well as supplying technology, CCL Associate Partners
also proposed specifi c tablet scenarios.
The decision on whether to trial the hardware/software was up to CCL policy project partners and teachers in the pilots and, in total, around 20 schools participated. In one of the observations in Belgium Flanders, the teacher had received a display screen from NEC and a license key for NEC DisplayNote. At the time of the observation, the teacher was beginning to explore the potential of the hardware and software. In a science lesson, the teacher took photos of the students during an experiment and was able to send these to the students immediately. The teacher annotated the photograph and encouraged the students to add in their own additional comments. The photograph was saved on Dropbox and this meant that the students could add this into their own work.
Four of the observations included classrooms in Austria, Italy, Lithuania and Portugal that had been equipped with the Samsung Smart School Solution. This enabled the teachers to distribute different activities to individual students in the class and to undertake formative assessment with short quizzes and provide instant feedback to the students. In Portugal, one teacher in the school observed was trialling the use of Promethean’s ClassFlow. This allowed the teacher to assign work to students at their tablet in a live learning activity. The students were then able to interact with the materials.
F.
Remote Observation
In the initial plan for the CCL project, the partners identifi ed that part of the experimentation would involve exploring the opportunities for a small group of the CCL teachers to record their practice using tablets and to observe each other and provide feedback. This approach to classroom observation provides teachers with the opportunity to collaborate and share real practice across larger professional communities. In 2012, IRIS Connec6 was identifi ed as the only cloud-based, online platform and mobile video system at that time which would allow teachers to easily record their teaching and share lessons with others in a virtual space that is private and secure. The technology enables the teacher to analyse, refl ect on and add time-stamped comments to their own lessons and
can then choose who to share it with. A remote observer is then able to offer their refl ections or suggestions to improve or enhance the teaching and learning.
As part of the project, fi ve CCL project teachers from different countries (Belgium Flanders, Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia) were equipped with a Discovery Kit from IRIS Connect. Each teacher was given initial training and access to technical support from the company to use the technology. Alongside this, the teachers attended bespoke webinars during the second year of the project to share their progress and evaluate the use of the equipment. The teachers were allowed to record lessons in their native language, but they were encouraged to teach in English to allow colleagues from other countries to benefi t from being able to share their practice. It was acknowledged that one of the differences between remote observation and face to face observation is that the observer cannot move around the room to gain further insight into the activities of the students. However, during the course of the experimentation, the teachers found effective ways to overcome this by providing additional notes in English to their refl ections.
The CCL project teachers said that it was very easy to record lessons and recognised that it was helpful to get feedback on their teaching. Initially, a minority of students reacted to the presence of the technology, but soon ignored it.
Simona Granfol, CCL project lead teacher, Slovenia:
Going forward – I am getting
to where I want, I am in a better position to include other teachers. Now whilst testing IRIS
Connect, I would like to use this to reflect with other teachers. Already after watching myself,
I have made ten points about what I have to change in my lessons.
12
Three different modes of using the IRIS Connect equipment have been identifi ed:
Mode
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
1
Showcase
The camera captures the outputs that the students have created.
The teacher may feel more confi dent using the equipment.
The teacher can identify particular students to have a specifi c role in the lesson.
The teacher can review the outputs, ensuring that nothing is missed.
This does not give the opportunity for the remote observer to see the teaching and learning.
2
Demonstration
The camera is on and the teacher uses the opportunity to demonstrate a particular software/ technology/ teaching strategy with the students.
This is an effective way to show other teachers either the entire lesson or a specifi c part of the lesson. This is helpful when the teachers want
to see/share a particular technology, teaching strategy or approach to classroom organisation being used.
The teacher may focus too much on either the technology or the students and “act” to the camera. The students may be more aware
of the presence of the camera. It may be necessary to “script”
the content of the lesson to ensure that all the points are covered for observers and some of the spontaneity will be lost.
3
Refl ective
The camera is on in the background and the teacher records the lesson for personal use or shares refl ections.
The teacher can record whole lessons or parts of lessons and choose whether to upload them to a private or shared space for review and analysis.
The teacher is able to share real practice and can consider how to improve or enhance teaching and learning. The teacher is able to agree with an
observer prior to the lesson on the aspects for focus and discussion. The teacher can seek feedback and
advice from colleagues that is evidence-based, personalised and contextualised.
The teacher may be more aware of using the technology and this may lead to unusual practice. Some students will be more aware
13
Main Findings
The main fi ndings emerged from the Link Observation Visits, through a combination
of the direct observation of lessons, the interviews with the CCL teachers,
discussions within the national focus groups and analysis of the teachers’ blogs.
Alongside this, each of the policy project partners has participated in an interview
at the beginning and the end of the project. The data from this has been collated
and analysed then grouped under the following themes:
1
Implementation of Devices and Connectivity;
2
Pedagogy;
3
Resources, Applications and Content;
4
Whole School Issues.
1
Implementation of Devices
and Connectivity
A.
Access and Ownership
Across the CCL project, the students have had varied levels of access and ‘ownership’ of their tablets. It is essential to consider ‘ownership’ not just in whether the device has been purchased exclusively for the student, but the extent to which the student is able to customize and personalise the device. This should include consideration about whether the student has the ability to download apps and make decisions about when to use the tablet.
Most CCL schools have implemented a single type of device. This is largely to avoid apparent network problems and compatibility between devices. There is little evidence from the CCL schools of tablet implementations with mixed economies of tablets in use.
Teachers and students were observed using several different kinds of tablets or devices including iPads, Samsung 7” Galaxy Tab, Samsung 10” within Samsung Smart School solution, Prestigio 7” tablets, Magalhães hybrid devices (Portugal), Acer netbooks and other brands of netbooks not specifi ed. The maximum time that tablets have been in any school is four years, but in many cases,
schools have only had their tablets since the beginning of the CCL project or just before. The focus has therefore been largely with only one or two groups of students for each teacher.
Schools have become more autonomous in their decisions to purchase tablets because unlike many other technologies they can afford to buy them in small numbers. This means that there is all too often an ad hoc approach and dependency on a few teachers within individual classrooms without consideration for what changes might be necessary across the school.
Teachers have tried various ways to ensure that the school can make maximum use of the devices; for example, some schools have bought one or two class sets of 25-30 devices and timetabled the access across as many students as possible. Whilst this seemingly allows more students to access the technology, it can create problems as a result of students having as little as one hour per fortnight to use the devices. It is important to understand that it takes time for the students to learn how to use the device and very limited access such as this also restricts the time to develop project work and produce outputs using the tablets. This can be problematic for teachers, particularly where they are trying to deliver a rigid curriculum and feel
14
that they cannot afford time to experiment with the tablets. In Lithuania, one of the CCL project teachers was only able to give the students one hour per week to use the devices. In addition, the students had to “log-in” to the devices and “log-out” and this usually has to be done in break times before and after the lesson. Some students were not familiar with using tablet devices outside this time and therefore it took longer for them to complete tasks or use certain tools or applications. Several teachers in different countries have commented that it cannot be assumed that students will know how to use the tablet intuitively. Teachers do need to devote some lesson time to show the students how to use certain applications, or make alternative arrangements to do this. In one classroom in Slovenia, the teacher showed six students how to use an app, whilst the rest of the class did a ‘warm-up’ question and it was then their responsibility to show all the other students in their group how to use the app.
Valerie Thompson, e-Learning Foundation, UK said:
“the assumption that children are digital natives is not true and children do need time to know how things work.” Teachers, therefore, have to deal with the fact that their students are not always familiar with the technologies or the expectations of doing this kind of work.
Petra Boháčková, CCL Project Lead Teacher, Czech Republic commented: “One of the biggest challenges is organising access to the iPads. The student numbers at the school are growing significantly and this means that the access to the devices is distributed across the students. The school would benefit from access to more devices, but this creates problems for storage too.”
Some classes did have enough devices to allow each student access and whilst it can be benefi cial for students to be able to share access in particular learning activities, it was diffi cult to use formative assessment and give individual student feedback using shared devices. There are several examples where the purchase of the tablet was made by parents either in agreement within the school or of their own accord. For example, in one of the schools in Austria, parents were mainly buying the devices for the students. In the UK, there were examples of parental contribution schemes; parents made payments each month and the student will own the device after three years. In some schools, for example, in Belgium Flanders, Belgium Wallonia, Czech Republic, Italy and Portugal, the devices were bought by the school, but assigned to an identifi ed group of students for a defi ned period. There are advantages to this; it is easier for the teacher to prepare learning materials knowing that the students have access to tablets. This is supported even further when the student is able to take the device home. This is because the student can begin to make their own decisions about when and how the tablet is used. It can
mean that the student is allowed to download apps and change the settings on the device to customize features. Signifi cantly, the student can have web-based accounts on the app which are “open” and not restricted by log-in details or additional passwords each time.
Furthermore, some schools had tablet classes and non-tablet classes. However this created a clear digital divide and whether this was by choice of the student or determined by the school, the consequence is that some students are excluded from access to technology which may impact upon their achievements.
The evidence suggests that ideally, students should be allowed to take the devices home and this will ensure that the teacher is able to plan for the use of the technology outside lesson time. Whilst this is still somewhat dependent on students having access to the internet at home; it enables the teacher and student to consider how the technology can enhance learning opportunities. Schools need to be aware of students that may not have internet access at home and provide alternative solutions through access after school-hours or in the library. The observation visits highlighted the signifi cance of giving teachers access to a device. There were some classrooms where all the students had access to a device, but the teacher was writing the task on a chalkboard. It is fundamental to ensure that the teacher has access to a device and it is recommended that this is the same device as the students. This helps the teacher to be able to prepare lesson materials and model activities during the lesson. The interviews with the policy project partners revealed that at a national level, there are no current examples of large-scale tablet implementations. However, there are examples of teaching and learning projects or “digital” projects which have enabled schools to access funding or undertake research and there is evidence to suggest that some schools will use this as a route to implement tablets. One of the biggest challenges at a regional and national level is to capture the practice that is happening in classrooms with regard to the implementation of tablets. The policy project partners realised that they do not have the complete data about what tablets schools have access to and who is providing the equipment.
For example, in Belgium Wallonia, there is a national project called École Numerique, (the digital school project) that is now in its third phase. The fi rst two phases involved 100 schools and these schools are now moving forward with their own project. The third phase will run until June 2016, involving 200 new schools and these schools will shortly be equipped with technologies, including 100 primary schools, 60 mainstream secondary schools, 40 higher level secondary and Special Educational Needs Schools including some Adult Education (16+) non-compulsory schools. 160 of these projects involve tablets.
15 The school defi nes their own project, and is given some
resources to achieve this goal. e.g. 24 tablets and one whiteboard or maybe 3 whiteboards, depending upon what materials the schools need. Regional advisers will provide support for the schools and there will also be two phases of data collection. Alongside this project, many of the schools in Belgium Wallonia have also bought their own tablets.
In Lithuania there will be a national project over the next 12 months equipping 200 classrooms with approximately 30 tablets paid for by the Ministry of Education. In addition, there has been the appointment of 20 consultant teachers and initial teacher training lecturers to provide pedagogical support and training.
Eugenijus Kurilovas, CITE, Lithuania:
“The training and experience of the CCL project
teachers will be very useful and inform these current developments and future work.
I think we did the first step only; we got teachers acquainted with tablets, we showed
them examples, gave them advice and now we need to share their ideas.”
In Italy, national projects on the digital school provided funding for Classroom 2.0 and Schools 2.0 programmes. There is no single project on 1:1 computing and schools decide autonomously whether or not to buy particular resources. There is no national policy for the implementation of tablets. Currently, there is no further funding at a national level, but there may be funding available to schools at a regional level. Italy has a pilot project with Samsung involving 25 schools in trialling the use of the company’s SMART School solution. Samsung has launched a new call together with the Ministry which potentially will involve up a further 70 schools. As a national ICT in education agency, INDIRE is promoting what they have learnt from their participation in both the ITEC and CCL projects and they will use this within their newly identifi ed Avant Garde Schools. 22 schools are promoters of the Avant Garde movement7 and promoting the ideas. They have signed a manifesto and schools can enrol if they are interested in joining the programme. At present, 140 have enrolled to test one or more of the innovation ideas.
At the same time, INDIRE is funding another open call, so that they can collect a number of ideas to test and discuss within an online community. The promoters will be the schools themselves. One of the important things is that the school is interested in developing a whole school approach to using ICT.
In the Czech Republic, the National Strategy for Digital Education until 2020 was approved in November 2014. There is a Ministry of Education funded project, “Call 51” which includes equipping teachers with tablets. This runs until June/July 2015. It is not for teachers in the Prague region – but for other teachers across the Czech Republic.
In Portugal, a recent national conference in January 2015 highlighted over 11 tablet projects at a national level. On January 31st 2015, the Ministry of Education in Portugal (DGE) had a national conference “Tablets in Education” which attracted almost
300 delegates from different municipalities across Portugal. Fernando Franco,
DGE commented: “This was a real combined effort of DGE, the
Universities and the schools. Because of the conference, we have a lot of questions
about tablets. We have made meetings with the lead teachers in the competence centres. They want regional conferences now and DGE will go to these, and make a plan to support them.” DGE has nine competence centres for ICT in the country across Portugal and employs teachers in Universities who engage in partnership work. They have a goal and a role to support teachers and schools who have an interest in ICT. However, the conference has highlighted that there is a need for tablet specifi c support and professional development.
Bernhard Racz from Austria indicated that the CCL project has provided an opportunity to test the different kinds of devices available. Two of the schools have used iPads, whilst two others have used Microsoft RT tablets and one school has been equipped with the Samsung Smart School solution. The Ministry has been able to undertake research and make recommendations to schools who are considering the purchase of devices. In brief, the recommendations suggested:
7” tablets are too small for general use in the classroom
10” tablets are fi ne for most subjects and everyday regular use
7 Educational Avant-garde: http://avanguardieeducative.indire.it/
16
Smartphones are ok for access to research and where some responses are required
12” tablets are required for drawing applications In a number of countries, it is felt that the concept of Bring Your Own Device is something that could be explored further in future projects. Headteacher and Director Julia Tainha, Portugal recognises: “BYOD is a problem because not all students have a tablet/mobile/laptop device, some would bring them, but some wouldn’t.”
B.
Connectivity – Reliability
The observation visits have shown that teachers are battling with access to reliable wireless connectivity. In some cases, the wireless access was limited to a single classroom or small area of the school where technology
teachers were based or where a particular teacher worked. This is limiting as it can mean that the students cannot be mobile with the devices and are restricted by timetabled access to learning spaces. There was concern that, if the access is unreliable in schools that have only 25-30 devices, this would mean that there needs to be substantial investment for the wireless to be stable when more students have access to devices. In schools that have more devices there has been an initial investment and an ongoing commitment to providing reliable connectivity (UK, Austria, and Czech Republic). Teachers are aware that some students do not have access to the internet at home. However, in general students were offered access to the library or time to complete homework in school. Having access at home did not impact upon any of the scenarios; it was much more challenging for teachers if there was no internet access in the classroom.
Rui Lima, CCL lead teacher, Portugal:
“During the past two years, we had lots and lots of
technical problems and students were forced to cancel activities because of these problems.
Sometimes I had doubts about the benefits of technology because of all the obstacles we
were facing. But the truth is that I’ve learned so many things to solve these problems and my
students have as well. Today, I feel I’m much more capable of teaching with technology and
my pupils feel that technology is their ally in the learning process.”
Jan De Craemer, Ministry of Education, Belgium Flanders pointed out that the current technical specifi cation for wireless connectivity is currently being reviewed with telecom providers. He explained that when the last technical specifi cation was developed three to four years ago, it did not anticipate the very fast growth in the number of devices in our schools today. The current plans will now have to consider all learning spaces and wireless connectivity in social spaces, including playgrounds.
Jan De Craemer, Belgium Flanders, commented:
“I am not convinced with changing technologies into tablets. Some schools still need PCs and laptops, and schools should think about what they want to do and what they want to achieve. At the moment, schools want the technology and then they think about what to do with it.”
Two of the policy project partners raised concerns over health issues in relation to wireless access. (Italy, Lithuania) In Lithuania, the Ministry of Health has issued guidelines about 3G and radiation in the school environment.
C.
Technical Support
One of the notable challenges for schools is technical support. Several of the classrooms in CCL schools had appointed one or two students to provide fi rst line support to other students and the class teacher.
In Slovenia, one of the schools had a part time technician who supported the maintenance of the individual devices. He is also a part time teacher, so this helps to ensure that he is aware of the issues in the classroom.
However, technical support often rests with the class teacher and whilst this may work with relatively small numbers of devices, it is not appropriate to expect the teacher to be responsible for downloading apps, confi rming upgrades and general maintenance of tablets.
17
2
. Pedagogy
A.
Curriculum
and
Timetables
The observation visits and interviews have highlighted signifi cant evidence that teachers fi nd it challenging to implement new ways of working whilst trying to fulfi ll the requirements of the curriculum at a national level. This is particularly evident with teachers who have classes in upper secondary where examination preparation dominates lesson time. It is evident amongst teachers who are less confi dent with using scenario development as a planning process and who fi nd it diffi cult to implement new ways of working in one single classroom because they have to implement new ideas with little or no support available in school. This emphasizes the need for school leaders to be aware of how the implementation of tablets will impact upon the curriculum and the timetable.
The CCL observation visits revealed that students and teachers have varied timetabled access to tablets for learning and teaching. Ultimately, this will impact upon the implementation of the learning scenarios and the learning activities that the student is engaged in.
One headteacher said: “Sometimes when we work with the tablets it can be disorganised and we think that the students are easily distracted. As a school we have found it important to consider whether the students should have access to the devices all day.”
In Portugal, one teacher shared that it had been a challenge to implement the scenarios whilst trying to fulfi l the requirements of the curriculum and prepare the students for testing. The teacher had decided to restrict the implementation of the scenario to three existing units of work. This helped the teacher to focus specifi cally on the use of tablets for certain topics, and reassured parents who were concerned that students may lose valuable time preparing for examinations. Antonio Gonçalves, CCL project teacher Portugal used Padlet as a project board for the students to be able to show their progress. This was because it was a public digital space encouraging the students to be open about their learning progress. It also revealed which students had been involved in certain tasks on a day to day basis.
Equally, other schools have discussed how the use of tablets has helped the teachers to achieve transparency across the curriculum. At Penwortham Priory Academy in the UK, the use of tablets by the whole year group opened up the issue of needing to see evidence of students’ digital work, related to different aspects of the curriculum. The school adopted the use of ‘Showbie’ which enables the students to keep a digital portfolio of their work. This means that teachers can see the work being done by students in different subjects. The student is also able to access all his or her digital work in one place.
In CCL schools in Austria, Slovenia and Lithuania, schools “collapsed the curriculum” on certain days to work on the scenarios as part of project days. However, this was challenging for the teachers and the students because it meant that students did not have suffi cient time to think about or develop their ideas. Some teachers felt that the students saw the tablet as just for “project” work and did not embed the use of the technology into their everyday work.
Across the CCL project, teachers have said that the scenario development process has enabled them to plan with other colleagues collaboratively across the different curriculum areas. This has been viewed as successful because it has allowed them to discuss ideas. It has enabled the teachers to see the learning activities and tasks that students are engaged in; consider the level the
18
student is working at; and make valuable comparisons between subjects about the consistency of the level of challenge.
B.
Length of Lessons
The length of the lessons in most of the secondary classrooms observed as part of the project was between 45 and 60 minutes. This has created challenges for teachers using tablets with students. It was particularly problematic where the devices did not belong to the student and time was lost distributing the tablets, accessing applications appropriately and putting the devices away. It can also be a problem when students have to move to a particular room or area of the school to access the technology or WIFI connection. Both phases of the observations showed that, where lessons are 90 minutes or “double lessons”, students have more time to develop their ideas. This means the teacher can focus the tasks to allow time for planning, creating new materials with the students and advanced discussion. Teachers felt that they need more fl exibility within the timetable. In Italy, Daniela Cuccurullo found that the longer lesson time when using the tablets allowed the teacher time to explore how the students have extended their learning between lessons. The objective of the fi rst scenario cycle in Italy was to implement the fl ipped vlassroom approach and in the second year of the project Daniela continued to encourage the students to undertake some learning at home prior to the lesson. The teacher is able to begin the lesson collating ideas in a collaborative digital space whilst
the students contribute their ideas using the tablets. This informs the next stage of the lesson where the students collaborate to develop new resources. Whilst the students could do this over a series of lessons, the focused time allowed them to go into more detail and consolidate their prior learning. It means that the teacher has time to offer support and check understanding of individual progress, rather than having 45 minutes to merely deliver often complex content.
Sandrine Geuquet, the CCL project lead teacher from Belgium Wallonia found it effective to give the students smaller timed tasks.“Initially, I gave them ten minutes to do a series of shorter tasks to assess just how much the students can achieve within a focused time. I also have to encourage the students to ask for help.”
C.
Team Teaching
There was evidence from the observation visits and interviews with teachers that some schools found it benefi cial to arrange ‘team-teaching’ as part of the implementation of tablets. In Austria, two teachers delivered a Physics lesson enabling one of the teachers to demonstrate the measurement of force in Newtons using science equipment, whilst the other teacher showed how to predict what might happen using a drawing on the Samsung large display screen at the front of the classroom. In this lesson, all of the students had to record their fi ndings on a digital worksheet that had been sent to their individual device. Having two teachers in the room meant that students had additional support and they could explore the use of equipment as well as the digital tasks. In Portugal, one school working with primary-aged students has used the scenario on liberating learners to combine two classes. This has meant that teachers can join two smaller classes together. Students all had their own device, but worked in groups of three on a project and both teachers provided support.
At Penwortham Priory Academy in the UK, the CCL project teacher, Lisa Cowell found it benefi cial to work with the learning support assistant who provided information about the individual learning needs of the students. In Belgium Flanders, CCL project teacher, Jan Thoelen was given additional time as part of his role to work with teachers in lesson time to support the use of ICT and this included the use of tablets. One teacher demonstrated something new in a staff meeting and then Jan created a schedule of support for other teachers.
19
D.
Content Creation –
Outcome vs Output
In both the fi rst and second phases of observations, there was substantial evidence of teachers directing the content and workfl ow of the lessons. For example, “go to xx app, use xx search engine, fi nd xx images and make a presentation”. This was partly because the teacher wanted to give the students a task and control the direction of the learning. This can be a particular challenge where the teacher is less confi dent with the technology. It is something that is minimized as the teacher becomes more familiar with the scenario development process and as the teacher engages the students in tasks that enable them to produce different outputs. For example, the students may be asked to produce a presentation, a poster, a video or a game. This means that students can use various applications and make their own decisions. In several countries across the project, particularly where teachers had not implemented the CCL project scenario, there was evidence to show that students can appear “busy” on the tablet spending substantial time in the lesson “searching for information” or “researching”. However, valuable teaching time can be lost if the students simply “copy and paste” or spend time making presentations rather than learning how to analyse, validate and evaluate within learning activities. It can mean that whilst the teacher “monitors” that the students are working, there is little or no evidence to suggest how the activity has challenged them. In Belgium Flanders, Philip Everaerts developed his scenario on Content Creation into an iBook. There were smaller tasks at each stage. This meant that the students could work through different tasks at each stage of the scenario and the students could work in rotating groups. This helped the teacher to organise the access to the
physical resources and helped the students to make effective use of their time.
In the lesson observation of the UK scenario on personalisation, the teacher invited each student group to present their video whilst the other students reviewed content. During the interview, the teacher emphasised the importance of the smaller outputs in earlier phases of the scenario. For example, it was made clear to the students that developing a quality video may involve lessons on producing storyboards, text analysis, research into the background context for the video, mind mapping, all of which would be outputs in their own right. This is particularly important as the teacher builds up a portfolio of evidence for the students as individual learners.
E.
Personalisation –
How do Students Learn?
There have been several discussions in the project around how can we encourage independent learning and, in a similar way, there were some teachers who wanted their students to be more self-organising and to take more decisions. Teachers involved in the scenarios on personalisation and liberating learners said that it has helped them to know more about their students by giving them opportunities to explore how the students learn. In the Liberating Learners scenario, Lithuania and Portugal used the questionnaire called VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic)8 which is free to use for educational purposes. The teachers used the fi ndings from the questionnaire to organise the groups for collaborative work, trying to identify students with different learning styles to work together.
8 Based on Fleming, N. (2006). Teaching and Learning Styles. VARK. 2nd ed. Christchurch, NZ. http://vark-learn.com/ the-vark-questionnaire/
20
In UK, the teachers used e-Pace9 with the students.
Phil Spoors, Cramlington Learning Village and CCL lead teacher, UK:
“The use of ePace
was an integral part of the Liberating Learners scenario for the UK. ePace was used to evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of our students in a range of skills and abilities essential for learning.
We realised that if we are going to help students develop into more independent learners we first
needed to know their starting point. The test itself was very revealing and helped teachers, students
and of course parents understand why some learning came easy to that particular student whilst
other learning was challenging. Once we had been through the scenario and had worked to build
up learning dispositions, strategies and confidence in being more independent we tested the
students again to see if there were any changes. The main importance of the results was to highlight
where particular students were strong and weak so that activities and material to develop their
independence could be tailored to their individual needs and negotiated with them.”
Lisa Cowell, CCL project teacher UK said:“the school has recognised the importance of students taking an active role, not a passive role in their learning with the tablets.”
In Italy, students in one class were given the freedom to choose what output they will produce. In an English lesson combined with Science about different forms of energy, students could decide whether to present their new knowledge as a wiki, a Popplet, a Glogster or develop an app.
F.
Collaboration –
in the Classroom and
School to School
Both phases of observations revealed that students can fi nd it challenging to work collaboratively. In Slovenia, the teacher asked the students to work together on a task in a mathematics lesson. However students were not familiar with doing this and, although placed in groups of four, they still worked on their own. Teachers found that it can be useful to ask the students to share a device and this meant that they had to communicate with one another. Teachers found it effective to give the students roles within the lesson; for example, in a mathematics lesson in Italy, the teacher assigned one student to be the photographer, one to be the constructor, and two to be the reporters. The constructor had to make a 3D shape from straws, whilst the reporters noted the resources used, took the measurements, wrote the instructions and the photographer captured each stage of the process. This was then collated by all the students into a fi nal piece of work for a presentation.
In a science lesson in Lithuania, the focus was for the teachers to encourage the students to be independent; however, the students needed to collaborate because
whilst some students were more confi dent with the task of producing a video, others were more confi dent with the science knowledge. It was important for the teacher to group the students according to their knowledge and skills. In the second scenario cycle in Portugal, the teachers used the VARK questionnaire to reveal more information about how the students learn. The teachers then used this information to inform their decisions about grouping the students for collaborative activities. Rui Lima, CCL lead teacher in Portugal said: “Using the VARK questionnaire made me implement more diversity in my approach to students learning.” The school has now implemented the whole curriculum through project based learning with students involved in different types of activities. Rui believes that “students are more focused on learning and making decisions about their learning.”
Simona Granfol, CCL Lead Teacher, Slovenia said:
“The scenario process has helped me to understand their learning strategies and realise that just because they use digital media, teachers must not assume that students have the necessary skills. Not everything is intuitive.”
In the Czech Republic, students discussed that it can be challenging to complete a collaborative task because “you have to communicate with people after the lesson who you do not normally work with.” Students are able to use the tablets or their own mobile devices to make decisions about learning and complete projects together outside lesson time.
The CCL project teacher Martina Baseggio Czech Republic said:“The scenario on collaboration has enabled me to learn more about students who feel more confident to emerge and shine within collaborative tasks.”
In Austria, the teacher in a science lesson gave the students time to undertake the task on tablets collaboratively, but also provided access to the physical resources. This gave the students time to validate and test out their ideas.
21 The teacher felt that some of the students found it easier
to complete the experiment using the physical resources when they had been given the opportunity to work with the tablets fi rst.
In Belgium Wallonia and Portugal, the teachers gave the students timed tasks to make sure that the students knew how long they had to complete the work. This encouraged the students to divide the tasks and take responsibility for their learning activities. Pedro Correia commented: “I have now realised as a teacher that I need to explain things from different perspectives. I cannot explain things from the front of the class. I have to ‘turn it over’ to the students.”
In Slovenia, mathematics teacher Andreja Pečovnik Mencinger said: “the whole project was a challenge; before the project we were only used to using ICT now and then with one hour in the computer room. Using tablets in the classroom is quite different.”
In the scenario on school to school collaboration, teachers highlighted the challenge in establishing appropriate ongoing links with other schools. Two schools in Belgium Wallonia found it diffi cult to set up external links because of time available and chose to work with each other. Two teachers in Belgium Flanders and Czech Republic established their links during the peer exchange meeting as part of the project. However, the lead teacher in the Czech Republic used eTwinning to establish a link with another school not involved in the project. In Slovenia and Czech Republic, the teachers discussed not just the importance of student collaboration, but staff collaboration too. Teachers recognised the benefi t of fi nding opportunities to plan scenarios on collaboration and school to school collaboration. One school in the Czech Republic collaborated with a local university. The university students prepared some materials to teach the lower secondary students how to build and program robots.
G.
Assessment with Tablets
Both phases of observations showed that teachers can fi nd it complex to assess the work of the students using tablets. Teachers are familiar with students handing in their individual work to be marked and returning it to them. This means the move to tablets can initially reduce paper based outcomes. Some schools were particularly concerned with how to evidence the student work on tablets for parents, but also to ensure that the students themselves had revision materials. The teachers had to make considerable changes to ensure that they are not just marking an end product, but providing evidence of students’ progress.
Teachers used apps like Socrative or Kahoot to implement formative assessment for students. Whilst these are not considered diffi cult to administer, teachers do need to give some time to learning how to make best use of the applications and preparing the questions for students.
However, the benefi t is that the teacher can maintain evidence of progress and use the data for teacher assessment but also to share with the students. As these types of applications are intended to inform individual assessment, it is necessary for students to have access to an individual device. This can be particularly effective at the beginning of the lesson to enable the teacher to recap or revisit information. It can also be useful at the end of the lesson when the teacher is gathering evidence of student understanding.
In Italy, the teacher demonstrated the use of paper based assessment and had chosen to do this only at the end of the activity with the students. This is because the students could not take their device home and the teacher wanted to be sure that the student had the criteria. However, this meant that students were unable to capture their refl ections along the way about their progress. This emphasises the need to have smaller learning activities and tasks requiring ongoing feedback. Students may not always be fully involved in the fi nal product, but it is crucial that their input and progress in activities is known.
22
However, there are examples of teachers asking students to develop their own criteria for assessment (Slovenia, Italy and Austria). In Italy, one teacher used Rubistar which allows students to write the criteria into a digital application.
In Belgium Wallonia, Sandrine Geuquet, the CCL lead teacher commented: “Recent assessments have shown that the students using tablets are not afraid to speak; they are more active and more reflective, they have become more cooperative.”
Phil Spoors, Cramlington Learning Village UK said: “The tablets combined with our class blog allow us to very quickly and easily collect photos of student work electronically and provide feedback virtually. They don’t need to wait for the next lesson to get their feedback and can begin to work on it straight away.”
H.
Student Refl ection
One other critical aspect of the scenario implementation is student refl ection. In the fi rst phase of observations, this was achieved in various ways. At Skinner’s Kent Academy, UK, Craig Bull encouraged students to review each other’s work,
suggesting improvements but also encouraging them to acknowledge student roles. In a lesson where students presented videos they had created, they were encouraged to consider the script, the fi lming and the acting. The teacher tried to maintain the link to the school curriculum as students were asked to mark work according to national curriculum levels.
In Belgium Flanders, Philip Everaerts began the lesson with a briefi ng to see where they were up to. The students then put their work on the school virtual learning environment, to show their progress. This was useful as it enabled everyone to have evidence of any refl ections; it also gave the teacher a basis for further classroom discussion.
In Lithuania, one observation showed students using Yammer to document their refl ections on certain apps. Following the fi rst phase of observations and the webinars, teachers identifi ed that they needed to give students more direct opportunities for refl ection. Most teachers chose to do this informally. Throughout the observations, it became apparent that teachers did not necessarily keep evidence of the student refl ection.
